Is NPR Breaking Federal Law By Blocking Conservative Job Applicants?
When it comes to news trustworthiness, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that all print and television media are repulsed by conservatism and Christianity. The main culprits are, of course, the ones who are quoted most often by NPR each and every day. Tune in to any day of the week's Morning Edition, All Things Considered, On Point or Left, Right and Center and you're bound to hear from any number of political hacks from the New York Times, Washington Post, Politico, Vox, CNN, ABC, NBC, Time, Newsweek, Al Jazeera, etc., espousing the same exact message: Anyone who falls on the right side of the political spectrum is either a complete idiot, or they are inherently and irreversibly evil.
You may be asking yourself, "Why do they all have the exact same opinions?" The answer is quite simple, really. It is because they are all the same people. If you travel between one media outlet and the next, you will be inevitably caught inside the temporal loop known as the "Inside the Beltway Tesseract."
Each and every individual who works for the New York Times has at one time or another worked for one or more of the other myriad outlets. It is not a statistical uncertainty, for instance, that you could (as a media employee) work for or with the same individuals at the NYT, the Post, CBS News or AP. In fact, many of the Editors-In-Chief at most of the print media in the US have "made the rounds" through a number of the most influential of these mediums.
One glaring component that is missing from these institutions, however, is the conservative voice. Statistically, if you were to compile liberal versus conservative employees in our university and college positions, you would always end with the same conclusion: left-leaning employees outnumber right-leaning employees by a margin that cannot even be described as "appallingly disparate." You can poll at any university or college in the whole of the North American continent and you will not find a single instance where the left doesn't outnumber the right by any less than 70-80 percent.
That exact statistical anomaly exists in our print and television media, only to a much more drastic degree. For institutions like the NYT and the WaPo, that type of situation doesn't warrant more than a polite yawn from the political establishment in any quarter of the country. That is precisely because those types of outlets are not required by law to make things "fair." In fact, they can even claim all the live-long day that they are unbiased and fair in their reporting and be lying through their teeth...but they cannot be held accountable to that simply because they are a private institution.
With universities and colleges, this is not the case. Because most institutions of higher learning receive federal funding for any number of reasons and in varying degrees of percentages based on the number of students and staffs, etc., they are held to a higher level of scrutiny when it comes to being fair. Why, then you ask, are the scales tipped so monumentally in the direction of the liberals when it comes to staffing? It is simply a matter of how many right-minded individuals are seeking to become teachers and professors. While the left is very good at infiltrating the school systems at even the basic foundational levels (even going so far as to teach sex education in kindergarten!) they are also artful at cultivating a young mind to think like the left, thereby steering those who are receptive to their way of thinking directly into a career path for education.
Conservative-minded or leaning students are uniformly dismissed and relegated to the trash-heap of ignorance. They are steered away from education, told to look into trade schools, or simply deemed too "religious" to harbor an open mind for greater aspirations. Kids in school who display a willingness to critically think outside the box and examine subject matter not through the red lens of socialism, but rather through the clear lens of truth, are chided for disruption in class or told to find another place to peddle their racism, bigotry, oppressive behavior, gender bias, or white supremacy. Still wondering why so many on the right only go on to receive business degrees?
With National Progressive Radio (NPR) however, we are treading on a much different road. Whereas the educational career path disproportionately attracts only leftists (by design) the media world attracts a healthy number of both right and left-minded people. For the liberal, it is very easy to assimilate to the mass media tripe that is pumped out on the airwaves everyday, or put into print at the Huffington Post. For the right-winger, though, there is a certain academic and business attitude of warfare when it comes to working in media. The right is very good at presenting the truth when confronted with calls for proof, examples, statistics, or percentages; however, it's the right's inability to broadcast those truths because of the stranglehold that the left has on the media outlets in general.
...should the Congress get directly involved with the placement of those [NPR] employees?
Which leads us to the question, "If NPR receives federal funding and it refuses to consider a conservative or Christian applying for a position in the institution, despite there being a massive pool of potential applicants of that ilk, should the Congress get directly involved with the placement of those employees?"
National Progressive Radio is partially funded by the American taxpayer, thereby designating itself as a public service. We do not have a voice in that matter. Americans have been funding NPR with their precious small salaries since the 1960s. The Public Broadcasting System (PBS) and NPR fall under the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), an entity created by the US government in order to provide free "quality" programming for the public at large. One arm was to be used for radio (NPR) and the other for television (PBS).
PBS, which also draws funding from the American taxpayer, features programs aimed primarily at focusing on a liberal agenda and continuing to feature only those programs that support leftist ideology. For instance, you will never find a show aired on PBS that DOESN'T attest to the rock-solid "fact" that Global Warming exists and is man-made in origin. Despite decades of attempting to "prove" Global Warming, theorists opted to do what leftists always do in the face of questions and calls for proof: they simply changed the name of the questionable subject matter. Therefore, when most people doubted the validity of Global Warming and the veracity of hand-picked celebrities who espoused these ideas, they were forced to pivot from Global Warming to a more friendly and all-encompassing Climate Change. Since climate does, by provable fact, change, there was no way to debate this with a leftist. Climate changing is fact and there can be no debate. Win-win.
With NPR, however, the programming was specifically created by the people running the show. While PBS merely aired shows that fit their leftist agenda, NPR took a less circuitous route and just created the programming themselves. They cut out the middle man and preempted any notion of having to decide what program faithfully executed the leftist talking points and merely produced the material themselves. This helped to craft and mold opinion in their leftist audience and also assisted in receiving even more rock-solid support from the Washington establishmentariat.
Can the president and his administration be absolutely wrong and at-odds with Americans on every single subject?
Turn on any show at any given time on NPR and you're bound to hear a denunciation of any opinion that even slightly leans right. Listen throughout the day and you'll marvel at how supremely inept, stupid and ridiculous the current administration is on any subject. Can the president and his administration be absolutely wrong and at-odds with Americans on every single subject? If you work at NPR and you're running programming opinion and streamlined thinking, you bet your bottom taxpayer dollar they can!
That then begs the question: If National Progressive Radio upper management is refusing to hire conservatives or professed Christians, and are basically practicing a very archaic Liberal Affirmative Action...while receiving federal funding from taxpayers...are they breaking federal laws? Is it possible that Congress must investigate their highly suspect hiring practices and a) cut off federal funding if there is not an immediate halting to this practice and b) get directly involved in the hiring process to ensure fairness under the Equal Opportunity Employment (EOE) act? There is not a single out-of-the-closet conservative serving at the mid-to-upper levels of management at NPR, after all.
A little more than half of the American population of 320+ million people profess to be conservative. More than 70 percent profess to be Christians. Slightly less than 30 percent claim to be liberals. While there are those who say they are independents, there is a lot of wiggle room to make the case that this fence-sitting technique is simply a portion of the population highly receptive to the whole "hands-across-the-aisle" myth that permeates modern Washington. If the taxpayer wants accurate and full representation in their government, that should also trickle down to those corporations who are directly benefitting from the taxpayer's dime.
NPR must answer to the American taxpayer by representing the proper ratio of individuals who are retained on its staff through transparent hiring practices that refrain from discrimination against those that hold a differing political bent. If NPR refuses to hire conservatives and Christians, it is misappropriating federal funding and breaking federal laws on employment and should be immediately defunded.